The Architecture of Global Environmental Governance: Pros and Cons of Multiplicity

Following is one of the chapters from the Center for UN Reform Education’s upcoming reader on Global Environmental Governance.

by Maria Ivanova and Jennifer Roy
January 2007

PDF VERSION

The Puzzle of Multiplicity

Environmental issues have come to exemplify most starkly the complexity and interconnectedness of the contemporary world. They have evolved over time from minor nuisances (emissions from the local factory) to serious health hazards (the smog across the industrialized world) to global concerns (transboundary air and water pollution, deforestation, fisheries depletion, biodiversity loss, and climate change). Contemporary environmental problems, therefore, require not only specialized knowledge about specific issues but also coordination and cooperation among close to two hundred countries.

In contrast to other global governance regimes such as health, trade and economic policy, the institutional architecture for the environment lacks clarity and coherence. No one organization has been able to emerge as a leader to actively champion environmental issues ensuring their integration within economic and social policies. International environmental responsibilities and activities are spread across multiple organizations, including the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), numerous other UN agencies, the international financing institutions, and the World Trade Organization. Adding to this tapestry are the independent secretariats and governing bodies of the numerous international environmental treaties.

At first glance, the world can be quite proud of the number of multilateral environmental agreements and institutions. In fact, the organizational proliferation in the environmental field seems encouraging and in line with the argument for mainstreaming environment into the mandates of all relevant organizations. The multiplicity of international agencies and conventions might also seem necessary as environmental issues are complex and require specific responses that could probably not be delivered by any single body. The practical result, however, has been a series of jurisdictional overlaps, gaps, and “treaty congestion” (Brown Weiss 1995) and an inability to respond to overarching environmental problems. This has led to operational and implementational inefficiencies, inconsistencies, and overload of national administrations in both developed and developing countries. In this context, the capacity of national governments and of international organizations to attain the environmental results desired has been severely weakened.

Contemporary academic and political debates have converged on the need for a strengthened, more effective, and more coherent institutional framework for global environmental governance. The political will for reform is evident in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document (United Nations 2005), in the report by the High-level Panel on UN System-wide Coherence (United Nations 2006, see also El-Ashry in this volume) and in the ongoing informal consultations on international environmental governance at the UN General Assembly (see Maurer in this volume). The views on the kind of reform necessary and the path forward, however, still diverge. At the core of the debate lies the question whether the architects of a reformed global environmental governance system should embrace its current multiplicity or promote greater coherence and actively stem fragmentation.

Some analysts assert that institutional multiplicity and a certain degree of overlap and duplication is necessary to ensure the optimal operation of the system (Oberthur and Gehring 2004; Najam 2003, 2002a). Others, however, have argued that institutional proliferation has become excessive and detrimental to effectiveness, efficiency, and equity in global environmental governance (Charnovitz 2005; Ivanova forthcoming; Berruga and Maurer 2006; Nowotny 2006). With little empirical work on the topic, however, the arguments on the pros and cons of multiplicity have mostly been grounded in anecdotal rather than systematic evidence. No comprehensive assessment of the activities and effectiveness of international organizations, conventions, and other institutional arrangements in the environmental arena currently exists. 1 Few systematic efforts to track mandates, actions, outcomes, and investments have been undertaken by scholars or practitioners. 2 Analysts have therefore often built their claims on assumptions, personal experiences, and normative visions, rather than on rigorous analytical and empirical research (Biermann and Bauer 2004b).

In this chapter, we set out to outline a systematic approach to understanding the pros and cons of the multiplicity of organizations3 in global environmental governance. The basis for our analysis is a set of empirical data on the environmental activities of the forty-four international organizations members in the Environment Management Group. A preliminary result of an on-going research project, this data set provides the first step toward an analytically based assessment of multiplicity and fragmentation. Future analysis will reveal a more nuanced picture, identify areas of complementarity and conflict, and point out possible collaborative initiatives.

Organizational multiplicity in the global environmental governance system has been cited by some as reflecting a productive overlap of goals and efforts (Oberthur and Gehring 2004; Najam 2002a, 2003) and as indicative of fragmentation, conflict, and inefficiency by others (Charnovitz 2005; Esty 1994b; Esty 2000). Similarly, polarized debates have also occurred in regard with the proliferation of non-governmental organizations and American bureaucracy (Kettl 2004). Most common in such debates are concerns about institutional overlap, i.e. “a situation where the possibility of conflict between two or more organizations is present due to similar mandated functions” (Young 2001). Proponents of institutional multiplicity regard overlap as purposefully built into the system and as necessary and often beneficial to result delivery. Critics, on the other hand, argue that as a result of unproductive multiplicity, focus is dissipated, efforts splintered, responsibilities scattered, funding squandered, and accountability lost.

The Pros of Multiplicity: Productive Overlap

Conventional wisdom in international politics asserts that “states use international institutions to further their own goals, and design institutions accordingly” (Koremenos, Lipson, and Snidal 2001). Fearful of infringement upon their national sovereignty, governments deliberately create weak and underfunded international organizations with overlapping and even conflicting mandates. This systemic inefficiency is assumed to stem supranational regulation in areas such as environment, human rights, or other seemingly secondary issues. Among the “rational” reasons for building multiplicity into the international environmental system therefore is the option for “forum shopping” – the opportunity for states to choose the international instrument most likely to serve their narrow self-interest (Alter and Meunier 2006; Gillespie 2002).

Alternatively, states may have designed international institutions to compete with each other within the United Nations in a spirit of “competitive multilateralism” (Wedgewood 2005). Increased competition for staff, resources, and projects is assumed to result in greater efficiency and effectiveness similar to that of private markets for goods or services. Drawing on this perspective, some analysts argue that functional and political “interplay” or interaction among similar organizations is a positive aspect of the environmental governance system (Oberthur and Gehring 2004). Interplay between organizations helps achieve their goals by pooling resources. However, organizations’ goals must be mutually reinforcing for sharing and positive interplay to occur. Incompatible regulatory approaches would lead to conflict and ineffectiveness (Oberthur and Gehring 2004).

A third rationale for multiplicity is the need for redundancy in operations to prevent a systemic malfunction (Landau 1969). In this view, large organizations are “vast and complicated information systems” within which minor errors can get amplified down the chain (Landau 1969). Redundancy in a system is thus considered as beneficial since it may help detect errors while they are small. A classic example of redundancy is that of a back-up engine on a jetliner. If a redundant engine were not in place, a failure of any one engine would result in a catastrophic system failure or crash.

In this light, some environmental policy scholars liken the overlap between environmental organizations to the productive interrelationships among organisms inherent in an ecological system (Najam 2004). This “ecologic” concept centers on the idea that the nature of environmental problems makes centralization of global environmental governance a poor idea; environmental problems are not the result of a single central cause, therefore the corresponding response should not stem from a single central policymaking body (Najam 2003). In essence, this view claims that complex environmental problems require complex institutional solutions. The multiple forums offered by a fragmented governance system may reinforce each other and result in a functional system.

The Cons of Multiplicity: Conflict and Duplication

While the hypothesis that states purposefully incapacitate international organizations may be instinctively appealing, there is little direct evidence to support such a claim. For example, the United States was an ardent supporter of an effective international mechanism for environmental protection in the 1970s resulting in the creation of UNEP and its Environment Fund. The proliferation of environmental organizations in the subsequent decades is less likely a function of US desire to incapacitate the system than of the country’s ambitions to set up what it considered effective international arrangements. Moreover, the environmental mandate of the World Bank was adopted largely as a result of US pressure rather than opposition (Nielson and Tierney 2003).

Forum shopping may indeed be a strategy used by governments likely to pursue their interests. However, there is little evidence that governments are more likely to take their concerns to the least efficient rather than the most effective forum. Quite to the contrary, governments seem to be using the instruments they consider well functioning regardless of the outcome. The World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement mechanism has been equally used by developed and developing countries and the WTO’s decisions have been duly implemented by countries.

Competition among organizations is an appealing theoretical concept. However, when the nature of the problem centers on coordination, competition becomes not only unnecessary but harmful. When financial, human, and institutional resources for environmental activities are scarce, the right strategy is cooperation rather than competition. Competition among agencies may in fact create incentives for organizations to perform easily measured and identified functions, while avoiding more difficult and intangible, yet critical tasks (Ivanova 2005a). The agencies themselves have recognized this problem. For example, the Global Environment Facility expressed concern over the lack of coordination among implementing agencies: “a period of declining core budgets triggered considerable competition between [implementing agencies] for funds” (GEF 2002). As a result, the GEF argues, developing nations at times receive “unclear and sometimes conflicting technical reviews from different sources in the implementing agencies” (GEF 2002).

While institutional interplay may have beneficial effects in theory, in practice, it does not always result in win-win outcomes; at times interplay results in incompatible outcomes (Oberthur and Gehring 2004). Incompatibility is especially troublesome when it leads to incongruities in international law (Raustiala and Victor 2004). Legal inconsistencies may hinder the credibility and coherence of international law (Raustiala and Victor 2004; Andresen 2001). For example, the Convention on Biological Diversity calls for more stringent regulation of genetically modified organisms than the WTO, which has created confusion and conflict (Pollack and Shaffer 2005).

Redundancy may be beneficial as reinforcement but when excessive, it can overload the system. The current multiplicity of forums and policymaking bodies has burdened national administrations and led to false priorities. If they are to participate in all the necessary meetings for all international environmental agreements, national officials have to spend 350 days a year attending conferences. Treaty fatigue is especially problematic for developing nations, which often lack the financial resources or number of personnel to attend conferences. The ensuing reporting requirements of numerous treaties is also burdensome – especially when different treaties call for different reporting guidelines.

Finally, complex problems cannot be solved by complex solutions. The “ecologic” argument proves to be rather narrow and misguided when applied to organizations. In nature, the system as a whole is said to be made more resilient by each of its parts. Greater diversity in nature is supportive of unique symbiotic relationships between and among highly specialized species; for example, the Calveria tree was dependent upon seed distribution by the now-extinct dodo bird. Today, the tree survives only due to the concerted efforts of humans to replace the dodo bird’s function. On the other hand, species that are considered to be more “generalists,” such as coyotes or others that exhibit tolerance for a range of habitats and situations, are most resistant to perturbation; these species are the first to proliferate in new areas. In the case of international organizations, “generalist” organizations, such as the WHO and others that have broad knowledge and skills, are most able to respond to new challenges and circumstances. The ability of an organization to adapt appears to be of greater importance than the existence of multiple layers of similar but “diverse” institutions.

Moving Forward: The Urgency of Coherence

While a formal system for environmental governance at the international level emerged in the 1970s with the creation of UNEP, environmental issues had already been part of the portfolios of a number of other UN agencies. The creation of UNEP did not remove these environmental responsibilities. Nor was it intended to. Realizing that environmental problems do not fit within the traditional boundaries of the nation state and within the expertise of any single existing organization, the founders of UNEP did not seek to create a new “super agency.” Rather, as Ivanova’s chapter in this volume shows, the new environmental body was conceived as a small, agile entity expected to catalyze cooperation, encourage synergy among the existing agencies, and bring together the system into a whole greater than the sum of its parts. Thus, from its very inception, coordination was at the core of UNEP’s mission. Coordination, however, has been likened to the modern day’s “quest for the philosopher’s stone” in that it is widely sought after and seldom truly achieved (Jennings Jr. and Krane 1994).

Over the years, rather than consolidating within UNEP, international environmental responsibilities have spread across multiple organizations, including: 1) specialized agencies in the UN system such as the World Meteorological Organization, the International Maritime Organization, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and others; 2) the programs in the UN system such as the UN Development Programme and the World Food Programme; 3) the UN regional economic and social commissions; 4) the Bretton Woods institutions; 5) the World Trade Organization; and 6) the environmentally focused mechanisms such as the Global Environment Facility, the Commission on Sustainable Development, and close to 500 international environmental agreements. Despite this increase in actors as well as in meetings, reports, and resources, the state of the global environment has continued to deteriorate. And as Ambassadors Enrique Berruga and Peter Maurer note, “the large number of bodies involved with environmental work has allowed specific issues to be addressed effectively and successfully, but has also increased fragmentation and resulted in uncoordinated approaches in both policy development and implementation” (Berruga and Maurer 2006). This lack of coherence in the system has “placed a heavy burden on all countries” (Berruga and Maurer 2006) as well as on international organizations and has significantly detracted from their capacity to deliver.

How incoherent, however, is the global environmental governance system? Who is active in environmental issue areas and in what way? While the multiplicity of international organizations within most environmental issue areas is an accepted fact, it does not necessarily entail overlap and/or conflict. A systematic comparison of mandates, projects and activities, budgets and outcomes could reveal whether activities in the same issue area are complementary or fragmentary.

Surprisingly, there exists no comprehensive database where one could find which organizations are active in environmental issue areas, whether it be biodiversity, climate change, or chemicals; what projects the organizations are engaged in; what resources are being invested in each area; and what the results are. In this chapter, we lay the empirical foundation for answering some of those questions for one particular set of actors – international organizations. The Environment Management Group – the forum for improved inter-agency policy collaboration and coordination in the field of the environment – comprises 44 members including intergovernmental organizations, treaty secretariats, and Bretton Woods Institutions and provides the basis for our analysis. We set out to build a coherent data set of the environmental activities of the international organizations members of the Environment Management Group and uncover areas of complementarity, duplication, or conflict.

We conceptualize environmental activities across twelve specific issue areas: agriculture, air pollution, biodiversity, chemicals, climate change, desertification, energy, fisheries, forests, invasive species, trade in endangered species, and water. While not an exhaustive list of all environmental issues, these areas exemplify the core concerns on the contemporary policy agenda. Table 1 provides the rationale for focusing on these twelve issue areas and the terms encompassed within each of them that form the basis for our empirical research.

  1. Table 1 Definitions and Terms

The institutional landscape within the twelve issue areas is indeed complicated. Among the 44 organizations in the Environment Management Group, 26 are active in climate change, 29 in chemicals, and 31 in water. The situation in the other issue areas is similar as illustrated in Table 2. (Black dots denote an organization’s primary involvement in an issue area and white dots denote a secondary involvement.) Moreover, organizations working on related issues are often spread across the globe, hampering inter-organizational communication and coordination. For example, in the water regime alone, Nairobi-based UNEP, Paris-based UNESCO, London-based WMO and the GEF in Washington (along with more than 20 other institutions) conduct similar activities. In addition, organizations working within the same environmental issue area may have dissimilar objectives or views. For example, in the chemicals regime, the WHO is most likely to be concerned with how chemicals affect human health, the OECD interested in development and coordination of environment health and safety activities among its member countries, the ILO in protecting the rights of workers who interact with chemicals while the IMO in preventing chemical waste from entering in the ocean and UNITAR in helping developing nations reduce the use of persistent organic pollutants.

  1. Table 2 International Organizations Activities

While this analysis provides solid evidence for the multiplicity in international environmental governance, it does not necessarily show complementarity, duplication, or conflict. International organizations may be active in the same issue area but engage in different activities – analytical, normative or operational. Analytical activities involve research, monitoring, assessment, and analysis. The information produced as a result can serve to formulate various policy options. Normative activities build on the analytics to produce new norms, rules, standards, guidelines, and policies. They may result in the adoption of hard or soft law at the national and international levels. Operational activities are visible and tangible, “on the ground” actions. They involve carrying out plans, implementing projects or providing services in specific localities. Working with publicly available information through the organizations’ websites, we were limited in our ability to extend the research to identifying patterns within these three core areas of activity. What this empirical research has highlighted, however, is the need for a systematic effort of mapping out the activities, investments, and results of key actors in global environmental governance in analytical, normative, and operational work.

Multiplicity and even duplication of analytical activities may be necessary and desirable. If several organizations observe the same environmental trends and produce similar or varying conclusions, the final result will be a more robust informational basis, a clearer understanding, and an analytically rigorous process. A key condition for this synergy to occur, however, is the existence of an information-sharing mechanism – whether it be a national agency or an international clearinghouse.
Multiplicity in normative activities poses a greater challenge. While some duplication of activities may lead to the development of more options for rules, norms, and policies, there is a clear danger for producing conflicting guidance and policies by different organizations. For example, if rules for trade in endangered species are developed by the WTO, CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species), the World Conservation Union (IUCN), and by Interpol (see Table 2 for the organizations active in this issue area), the final result is likely to be different – informed primarily by economics, conservation and the potential enforceability of the rules.

In operational activities, multiplicity can be particularly damaging if various agencies repeat the same work. The result is usually a dangerous overload of national capacity and fragmented policy at all levels. The operational aspect of architectural fragmentation has been researched in the health field.4 Dozens of actors – international organizations, donors, NGOs, and private foundations – have launched country programs to deal with HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and other diseases. As Cohen (2006 : 166) observes, “The overall effect is a comical mess but the problem is anything but. ‘We were stepping on each other’s toes, and in some countries it was destructive,’ says Debrework Zewdie [of Tanzania], who heads MAP [Monitoring the AIDS Pandemic Network] and also sits on the board of the Global Fund. ‘Imagine the amount of time that countries spend catering to the different donors rather than fighting epidemics.’” The potential solution offered by UNAIDS was “the three ones” principle, which calls on each country to have one HIV/AIDS budget, one national AIDS coordinating committee, and one national monitoring and evaluation system that can report the same data to each donor (Cohen 2006: 166).

Recent reform analyses within the UN system reflect a similar need for coherence and cooperation in the environmental field. The November 2006 report of the High-Level Panel on UN System-Wide Coherence, Delivering as One, calls for a strengthened and more coherent international environmental governance system by consolidating or eliminating duplicative agencies in an effort to clearly assign organizational responsibility, reduce duplication of efforts, and reduce burdens on participants. In addition, the Panel recommended the enumeration of common, targeted goals and targeted actions within the system along with newfound cooperation on a thematic basis to harness and create synergy (United Nations 2006).

Conclusion: Next Steps

There is clearly a disconnect between the magnitude of environmental problems on the one hand and the ability of contemporary institutions to effectively address them on the other. For all the rhetoric, agreements, and promises of action over the past 30 years, actual institutions, processes, and resources have fallen short of addressing the problems for which they were established (Speth 2003, 2004). To be fair, environmental problems are difficult to tackle because they are hard to see, spread over space, stretched out in time, with diffused costs and concentrated benefits. National sovereignty in the face of global environmental problems has also proven a difficult obstacle to effective solutions as governments have been driven to act on the basis of narrowly defined self-interest rather than the common good. In addition, too often, international environmental organizations are underfunded or otherwise incapacitated. Moreover, disjointed priorities within national governments have led to conflicting viewpoints in different international forums.

Nevertheless, the lack of coherence and coordination of organizational priorities, activities, and investments at the international level only exacerbates the problem. A key finding of the empirical analysis we undertook is that even though a certain division of labor among international organizations may exist, considerable overlap and duplication of activities likely persists. For example, while the Convention on Biological Diversity has set up an information clearinghouse for biodiversity information, there are still no standards and common methodologies for assessment, monitoring, and reporting on biodiversity. Each international organization is responsible for ensuring that their biodiversity projects are effective and little coordination of activities and criteria exists. Without a comprehensive and accurate map of the roles, responsibilities, and resources of international institutions in the field of environment, it will be difficult to identify gaps and the means to bridge them.

In the Outcome Document of the 2005 World Summit, governments agreed to “explore the possibility of a more coherent institutional framework [for the environment], including a more integrated structure, building on existing institutions.” Any reform of global environmental governance, however, needs to be based on a holistic assessment of the strengths and weaknesses in the current system. To this end, a comprehensive assessment of the global environmental governance system should be initiated. It would help clarify and understand the roles, responsibilities, and resources of three core groups of actors in global environmental governance: international environmental organizations and conventions, development banks and organizations, and other UN agencies and large NGOs. Only with such an understanding can the competing propositions that fragmentation is a sign of duplication or complementarity be tested. The assessment would reveal institutions’ comparative advantages, highlight the current division of labor, and enable the development of reform proposals grounded in fact rather than fable.

  1. Acronyms List
  2. Bibliographical References

  1. A notable exception is the Global Governance Project (http://www.glogov.org) – a collaborative effort of eight European research institutions focused on the effectiveness of international institutions and organizations. The results of the research are due to be published in 2007.
  2. In 2006, the High-Level Panel on UN System-Wide Coherence initiated a review of the international environmental conventions’ mandates, budgets, staff, and activities setting the stage for a larger assessment of the system.
  3. Our focus in this chapter is on international organizations only. We define international organizations as public agencies established through the cooperative efforts of two or more states that possess headquarters, legal personality, personnel, equipment, and budgets (Young 1992; Biermann and Bauer 2005b). Non-governmental organizations are beyond the scope of this analysis.
  4. For example, UNAIDS launched a process analyzing the “institutional architecture” that connects the various stakeholders in the HIV/AIDS regime (Cohen 2006).
AttachmentSize
Ivanova and Roy GEG.pdf255.37 KB
Final-Table 1-definitions and terms.pdf20.38 KB
Final-Table 2-IO activities.pdf102.28 KB
Final-Acronyms List.pdf11.59 KB
Ivanova and Roy_Bibliographical References.pdf68.57 KB
Ivanova_and_Roy_website_posting.pdf255.1 KB

Latest Updates

NOTE: It appears that many links to attachments and chapters of publications do not work at present. We are in the process of resolving this issue.

The Advisory Group's Non-Paper: Will it Facilitate Security Council reform?
[updated]On 12 and 16 December 2013, an informal meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council reform took place, with the Non-Paper faxed to Member States just a few days earlier.

On 21 November 2013, the General Assembly Reacted to the Security Council's Annual Report (A/68/2)
The Annual Report of the Council was again discussed - independently from the general Security Council reform debate - as promoted by ACT.

Creation of Advisory Group on Security Council Reform to Provide Basis for Negotiations Unsurprisingly Meets Opposition
Update on Security Council Reform: Creation of PGA’s Advisory Group and joint plenary meeting held on 7 and 8 November 2013
by Lydia Swart, 10 November 2013

The Center for UN Reform latest publication on Security Council Reform: Governing and Managing Change at the United Nations: Reform of the Security Council from 1945 to September 2013

A New Low Point in the Security Council Reform Process: Serious Clashes between the President of the General Assembly and Chair
On 27 June 2013, the President of the General Assembly, Vuk Jeremic, rather than the Negotiations Chair, Zahir Tanin, presided over a meeting of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council Reform, highlighting an ongoing disagreement between the two about how and when to proceed during the current session.

21 Member States Launch ACT, a New Initiative for Better Working Methods of the UN Security Council
by William Pace, 12 May 2013
On Thursday, 2 May 2013, ACT (Accountability, Coherence, and Transparency) officially launched its initiative for better working methods of the Security Council. This initiative is a follow up to the multi-year efforts from the S5, in particular in regard to its draft resolution L.42 Rev.2 from May 2012.

No Strong Support for Drafting of Concise Working Document: Chair Proposes to Put Negotiations on "Strategic Hold."
Updated 7 May 2013
On 16 and 17 April 2013, Member States discussed ways on how to proceed with the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, reacting to the proposals made by the Chair in July 2012. The Chair of the negotiations, Amb.Zahir Tanin of Afghanistan, believes that without a working document that could lead to actual give-and-take negotiations, it might be better to "put the negotiations on strategic hold."

Draft Resolutions on Security Council Reform: Growing Convergence between Developing Countries?
By Lydia Swart, 4 March 2013
Includes draft resolutions from L69 (2012) and CARICOM (2013)

Update on Security Council Reform: Another impasse?
By Lydia Swart, 1 February 2013
An update on Security Council reform efforts from July 2012 - 30 January 2013

Annual debate on the working methods of the Security Council - DPI report
26 November 2012

Joint Debate in the General Assembly on the Report of the Security Council & the Question of equitable representation and increase in its membership - DPI report
15 November 2012

67th Session Third Committee Preview
By Tamara Johnson, 24 October 2012
As the Third Committee progresses with its 67th session, here are some hot button issues with which the NGO community and some delegations (the off the record nature of the consultations informing this article prevents specifics) are particularly concerned.

Report on the Security Council Open Debate on Children in Armed Conflict
By Tamara Johnson, 28 September 2012
The Security Council, on 19 September 2012, held an open debate pertaining to The Report of the Secretary-General A/66/782-S/2012/26 on the status of children in armed conflicts and Resolution 2068(2012), the Security Council’s response to the Secretary-General’s report. While this subject of protecting children seems noncontroversial, the resolution proved more polemical than one may have expected. The principle subject under dispute was the reach of the Security Council’s mandate to protect children in armed conflict. The modalities of such protection and the efficacy or appropriateness of different options were also discussed. This report outlines key aspects of the resolution and the lines of argument the debate followed.

Report on Rio+20 Outcome and Migration: Including all stakeholders in the future we want
By Tamara Johnson, 30 August 2012
On 22 August 2012, the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and the MacArthur Foundation hosted a seminar to review issues surrounding migration policy in a human rights-based framework, as outlined in the Rio+20 outcome document, "The Future We Want.” This report summarizes the statements made at the event.

Report on the Committee for Development Policy Strategy Beyond 2015
By Tamara Johnson, 10 August 2012
On 23 July 2012, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) heard a briefing by members of the Committee for Development Policy (CDP) regarding development strategy post-2015. The Vice-President of the Council, H.E. Mr. Luis Alfonso de Alba, opened the meeting. CDP members Ms. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Professor of International Affairs, The New School; and Mr. Norman Girvan, Professional Research Fellow, UWI Graduate Institute of International Relations, University of the West Indies, Trinidad and Tobago reviewed the Committee’s recent report, United Nations Development Strategy Beyond 2015. This article provides a summary of the briefing and the CDP report.

Report on ECOSOC Panel Discussion: "Improving capacities for evidence-based humanitarian decision-making”
By Tamara Johnson, 5 August 2012
On 19 July 2012, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) held a panel discussion, “Improving capacities for evidence-based humanitarian decision-making,” as part of its humanitarian affairs segment on special economic, humanitarian and disaster relief assistance. This report provides a summary of the meeting.

Letter of the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on SC Reform outlines negotiations thus far and possible ways to move the process along
By Lydia Swart
On 25 July 2012, Amb. Zahir Tanin, in his capacity as Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council reform, wrote a letter to the President of the General Assembly, H.E. Mr. Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, in which he provided an overview of the intergovernmental negotiations to date while also outlining possible ways to move the process along, including a concise working document to be drafted by the Chair. It is noteworthy that in spite of this bold move, Amb. Tanin was reappointed by the President of the General Assembly of the 67th Session as Chair of the negotiations.

Report on the Security Council Open Debate on the Peacebuilding Commission
By Tamara Johnson, 20 July 2012
On 12 July 2012, The Security Council (SC) met with representatives of the World Bank and the Chair and former Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) to debate the PBC’s efficacy and relevance. SC President and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Colombia, Her Excellency María Angela Holguín, convened the debate pursuant to the Report of the Peacebuilding Commission on its fifth session (S/2012/70) and a Note Verbale dated 2 July 2012 from the Permanent Mission of Colombia to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (S/2012/511). This report provides a summary of the meeting.

Report on ECOSOC Panel Discussion: “Mobilizing partnerships for development, including in the field of education.”
By Tamara Johnson, 22 July 2012
On 11 July 2012, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) held a panel discussion, “Mobilizing partnerships for development, including in the field of education.” Vice-President of the Council, H.E. Mr. Mootaz Ahmadein Khalil (Egypt) chaired the panel, which was moderated by Ms. Sigrid Kaag, Assistant Secretary-General and Assistant Administrator and Director of the Bureau of External Relations and Advocacy, United Nations Development Programme. This report provides a summary of the meeting.

Report of the 4th Thematic Meeting in the Ad Hoc Working Group on Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly
By Mie Hansen,28 June 2012
On 1 June 2012, the Ad Hoc Working Group (AHWG) on Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly met for the fourth and final thematic meeting, dedicated to a discussion of “ Enhancing the functions of the Office of the President of the General Assembly including Strengthening its institutional memory and its relationship with the Secretariat”. This report provides a summary of the meeting.

Report on the 2nd and 3rd Thematic Meeting in the Ad Hoc Working Group on Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly
By Mie Hansen,17 May 2012
On 30 April 2012 and 10 May 2012 the Ad Hoc Working Group (AHWG) on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly held its 2nd and 3rd thematic meetings, discussing respectively “Working methods of the General Assembly, implementation of GA resolutions and the agenda, as well as operational and technical issues” and “The role of the General Assembly in the selection and appointment of the Secretary-General of the UN, as well as in the selection of candidatures for other executive Heads of the UN system”. This report provides a summary of the two meetings

Report on Security Council Reform Meeting 10 April 2012
By Kirsten Schlosser
4 May 2012

On 10 April 2012 the fifth meeting of the eighth round of Intergovernmental Negotiations was held on Security Council reform. This meeting was devoted to the reform initiative of the C-10, presented by the Member State Sierra Leone. This summary is based on statements given by Member States at the meeting.

Report on Security Council Reform Meeting 13 March 2012
By Kirsten Schlosser
4 May 2012

On 13 March 2012 the fourth meeting of the eighth round of Intergovernmental Negotiations was held on Security Council reform. This meeting was devoted to the reform initiative of the L.69 Group, presented by the Member State Jamaica. This summary is based on statements given by Member States at the meeting.

Report on the first thematic meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly
By Mie Hansen, 25 April 2012
Last Thursday, 19 April 2012, the ad hoc working group on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly met for the first thematic meeting of the session, dedicated to “The role and authority of the General Assembly and its relationship to the principal organs of the United Nations and other groups outside the United Nations”

Harmonization of Business Practices: System-wide Coherence reform 2008 to Present
By Katie Jagel 23 April 2012
Harmonization of business practices was first introduced to the UN in 1977 within resolution 32/197 which resolved, “…measures should be taken to achieve maximum uniformity of administrative, financial, budgetary, personnel and planning procedures, including the establishment of [...] harmonized budget and programme cycles”. The idea made its resurgence as one of the five surviving clusters of the 2006 High Panel on system-wide coherence (SWC). In a 2009 outcome document from a joint meeting between the executive heads of UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, and WFP, it stipulates, “While simplification and harmonization of business practices in the UN system are not new initiatives, the urgency and momentum, the scope, and the approach are now new aspects of those initiatives.” ECOSOC has subsumed the initiative to a large degree, often with collaboration from the CEB, UNDG, and WFP, with progress shifting away from 'harmonization' and towards 'simplification' starting in 2010.

Improving the Funding System of Operational Activities for Development: System-wide Coherence 2008 to Present
By Katie Jagel 23 April 2012
Funding reform has been, and continues to be, a necessary reform to enhance UN efficiency. This article covers the progress of Funding as a cluster within system-wide coherence in 2008, to the present efforts of improving the funding system of operational activities for development taken on by the Fifth Committee, ECOSOC, UNESDA, and the CEB.

Strengthening Governance of Operational Activities for Development: System-wide Coherence 2008 to Present
By Katie Jagel 18 April 2012
Governance reform within the UN is one of the most active sites for comprehensive UN reform. Since 2006, simple ‘governance’ reform has transformed into the more formal “Strengthening Governance of Operational Activities for Development” and has been a fixture on several UN organ agendas. This article maps the efforts, debates, outcome documents, resolutions, since 2008 but focuses mainly, on the actual progress made by the UN on the governance front.

The “Delivering as One" (DaO) Initiative: System-wide Coherence reform.
By Katie Jagel 18 April 2012
This article is a summary of the Delivering as One initiative, monitoring the events which took place from inception up through implementation and subsequent evaluations. It tracks the events and debates which took place since 2008 up through the latest Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review planning documents, planned for late spring of 2012.

The Creation of a Composite Gender Entity: System-wide Coherence reform 2008-present.
By Katie Jagel 16 April 2012
The Creation of a Composite Gender Entity was one of the recommendations of the 2006 High-Level of System-wide Coherence. This article maps the progress of the making of UN Women since 2008. The years 2005-early 2008 are covered in the previous article by Jonas von Freiesleben in Chapter 3 on System-wide Coherence in the Center’s 2008 Edition of Managing Change at the United Nations . This article starts in 2008 and covers the Member State disputes, many concept notes and debates, and what the UN Women organization has been up to since its start date in February of 2011.

The S5 presents draft resolution on the Improvement the Working Methods of the Security Council
By Mie Hansen 10 April 2012
On 4 April 2012 the S5 (Jordan, Liechtenstein, Costa Rica, Singapore and Switzerland) presented a draft resolution on improving the working methods of the Security Council. At the meeting the S5 called for the General Assembly to take a stand to on the issue and suggested 16 May as a possible date for a vote. This article provides a summary of the proposal and the meeting held on it.

First Meeting of the 66th GA session in the Ad Hoc Working Group on Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly
By Mie Hansen 30 March 2012
On 27 March 2012 the ad hoc working group on revitalization of the work of the General Assembly held its first meeting of the 66th General Assembly session. The working group, established pursuant to resolution 65/315, is during the current session Co-Chaired by Ambassador Alexander Lomaia of Georgia and Ambassador Susan Waffa-Ogoo of the Gambia. The meeting was dedicated to a general exchange of views among the Member States on all of the issues included in the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly. This article provides a summary of the meeting and the statements made.

Report on Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) March 7th Special Panel Discussion on “ECOSOC and Global Governance”
By Katie Jagel, 21 March 2012
On March 7th ECOSOC hosted a Special Panel Discussion in New York centered around Global governance. The Discussion hosted three distinguished panelists and was designed by the President of ECOSOC, H.E. Miloš Koterec, as an 'open free-flowing discussion with no formal statements' between Member States and the panelists. Based on questions and statements from Member States, ECOSOC's role in global governance within the UN system is unquestioned but needs to be better defined and articulated in order for it to utilize its mandate as a 'logical platform and good compliment alongside the G20 and the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWI's)'.

Report on Security Council Reform Meeting 21 February 2011
By Mie Hansen, 12 March 2012
On 21 February 2012 the third meeting in the eighth round of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform was held, dedicated to the reform initiative of the Uniting for Consensus group. Based on statements delivered by Member States at the meeting as well as conversations with delegates and observers to the process, this report provides a summary of the meeting as well as an update on the current state of the negotiations.

The Human Rights Council: Is it filling its mission as the World’s premier human rights protector?
By Thomas Colerick 23 February 2012
This posting provides an update of the Center’s 2008 article “The establishment of the Humans Rights Council”. It analyzes the achievements of as well as challenges to the Council since 2008 as seen from the perspectives of different stakeholder including civil society, UN Officials and UN Member States.

Update on Security Council Reform: Meeting from 26 January 2012
By Alicia Stott, 15 Febraury 2012
In a letter by the current chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiations to the Member States and the President of the General Assembly, it was stated that in the interest of facilitating more in-depth discussion and evaluation the remainder of the meetings for the eighth round of the group will be providing each of the representatives of the five major initiatives the opportunity to present their most current proposals for Security Council reform, beginning with the G-4.

The Council on Foreign Relations posts video talk on Security Council Reform
On 11 January 2012 the Council on Foreign Relations posted a video talk by Stewart M. Patrick on Security Council Reform, entitled “UN Security Council Reform: Is it Time?”. Click here to watch the video talk on the CFR website

Meeting on General Assembly Revitalization 1 December 2011
By Mie Hansen, 5 January 2012
On 1 December 2011 the General Assembly met to discuss Agenda Item 120: Implementation of the Resolutions of the United Nations and Agenda Item 121: Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly.
This article provides an overview of the debate.

Former consultant with the Center for UN Reform Education wins prestigious award
By Thomas Colerick, 13 December 2011

Meeting in the General Assembly on Security Council Reform, 8 and 9 November 2011
By Mie Hansen, 7 December 2011
On 8 and 9 November 2011 the 51st and 52nd plenary meetings of the 66th General Assembly session were held with a discussion of Agenda Item 122: Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters. This article gives an overview of the debate and the statements made during the meetings, as well as an update on the developments in regard to Security Council reform leading up to the debate.

The 2011 Annual Report of the Human Rights Council
By Thomas Colerick, 8 November 2011
The 2011 Annual Report of the Council is now available.

Highlights of the Human Rights Council’s 18th Regular session
By Thomas Colerick, 11 October 2011

New report on the Human Rights Council’s fifth year
By Thomas Colerick, 4 October 2011

The Human Rights Council’s 18th Session (12-30 September 2011)
By Thomas Colerick, 28 September 2011

Update on Revitalization of the General Assembly: A RECAP OF DEVELOPMENTS DURING THE 65th GA SESSION
By Mie Hansen, 27 September 2011
Even before heads of state from around the world gathered last week at UN headquarters in New York for the opening of the 66th annual session of the UN General Assembly, the world’s main deliberative body, continuation of the ongoing negotiations to make the Assembly more effective, efficient and relevant were assured for yet another year. Member States have been discussing the “Revitalization of the General Assembly” for the past twenty years, but according to some critics only minor improvements have been made, leaving deep-seated reforms untouched. Even though all Member States seem to agree that reform of the Assembly is vital, recent developments confirm that it is still very difficult to reach an agreement on what should be done.

Chronology: The Human Rights Council – elections, sessions and important developments
By Thomas Colerick, 23 September 2011
As the Center for UN Reform Education once again will be covering the Human Rights Council more systematically, this chronology of the Council is provided. It includes elections, selected sessions and major developments and takes the reader from the Council’s birth in 2006 to today where the Council is currently holding its 18th Session in Geneva, Switzerland.




Panel on Improving Security Council Working Methods
On 23 June 2011, The Center for UN Reform Education held a panel discussion on “Improving the Working Methods of the Security Council”. The basis for the discussion was the most recent version of the S5 draft proposal on Reforming the Working Methods of the Security Council.




Qatar hosts workshop on Security Council Reform
On 12 & 13 May 2011, Qatar hosted a workshop on Security Council Reform in Doha. Lydia Swart of the Center was invited and she shared ten observations on this key reform process.

To move the process along, Member States, the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiations, and/or the President of the General Assembly will need to provide leadership by proposing a timeline/trajectory for the negotiations and by formulating a compromise solution that can garner support from all factions.




S5 presents draft resolution on Improving the Working Methods of the Security Council
By Mie Hansen, 2 May 2011
On 14 April, 2011, the Small Five Group (S5), consisting of Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore and Switzerland, presented a draft resolution for Improving the Working Methods of the Security Council. The resolution was presented under agenda item 115 of the General Assembly (GA) that deals with follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit. The S5 had presented its first draft resolution on the topic (A/60/L.49) in 2006 also as follow-up to the 2000/2005 Summits.

Update on Security Council Reform
By Mie Hansen, 5 April 2011
Since the Center’s latest update of 22 June 2010, Members States conducted text-based negotiations on 21 October 2010, 11 November 2010, 14 December 2010, and on 2 March 2011 in their efforts to reform the Security Council. Some countries apparently continue to slow down the negotiations, while others may push for a vote sooner rather than later.

Book Launch, The Group of 77: Perspectives on its Role in the UN General Assembly.
25 April 2011
Pictured from right to left: Center President William R. Pace, Minister Marcelo Suarez Salvia from Argentina (current G77 Chair), Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz of Egypt, Ambassador Herman Schaper of the Netherlands, and co-author Lydia Swart. For their remarks, click here: Minister Suarez, Ambassador Schaper, Ambassador Abdelaziz (pending) and Lydia Swart.





Text-based Negotiations in Full Swing
22 June 2010
On June 16th the negotiations on Security Council reform proceeded with the third meeting of the fifth round. The meeting aimed at getting member states to discuss specific language on the fourth “key issue”. Many countries seemed to have misunderstood the intention of the Chair, however, and restated their positions rather than making suggestions for specific changes to the document at hand.

Potentially Historic Text on Security Council Reform
By Jakob Lund, 13 May 2010
On May 10th, Zahir Tanin, the Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations on the question of equitable representation and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council, sent out a long-awaited fax to all member states containing a “negotiation text”. The text and the annex can be accessed on the website of the PGA. The text includes the proposals sent by member states to Tanin's office since he opened the process of moving towards a text-based solution.

Open Debate on the Working Methods of the Security Council
By Jakob Silas Lund, 28 April 2010
On April 22nd, the Security Council’s Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Issues held an open debate on the working methods of the Council. The debate raised some key questions that are relevant to the ongoing Security Council reform negotiations. Furthermore, to keep the issue of its working methods on the agenda of the Security Council is, in and of itself, an accomplishment.

A New Phase in Security Council Reform Has Started
10 February, 2010
On February 5th, the Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, Ambassador Tanin of Afghanistan, sent out a letter to all member states with an attachment of sixty pages. The document (available here and here) includes all “substantive input” submitted by Member States to the Chair thus far in the fourth round of negotiations. This marks the beginning of the fifth round, which, for the first time, will be text-based.

Moving Towards Text-Based Negotiations?
By Jakob Silas Lund, 21 January 2010
The previous month was an eventful one in terms of the Security Council reform process. On December 23rd, a group of countries sent a letter to the Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations, Ambassador Tanin of Afghanistan, urging him to present a composite paper. Following that, Tanin received a number of other letters concerning the process and on January 14th he replied with his own letter to all member states. This all culminated in the latest round of negotiations on January 19th and 20th in which the consequences of the letter exchanges were discussed.

Pros and Cons of Security Council reform
By Jakob Silas Lund, 19 January 2010
Through extensive interviews with experts as well as current and former Ambassadors and diplomats who have been close to the reform process, this article outlines and analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of the components incorporated in the proposals currently on the table.

The Long and Winding Road
by Jakob Silas Lund, 11 December, 2009
On November 16th, the chair of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, Ambassador Zahir Tanin of Afghanistan, sent a letter to all member states inviting them to the first meeting of the fourth round of negotiations. The negotiations ended up spanning over two days rather than the planned one-day session.